↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (55th percentile)

Mentioned by

5 tweeters


8 Dimensions

Readers on

30 Mendeley
Propofol versus thiopental sodium for the treatment of refractory status epilepticus
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd009202.pub3
Pubmed ID

Prabhakar, Hemanshu, Kalaivani, Mani


This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 8, 2012.Failure to respond to antiepileptic drugs in patients with uncontrolled seizure activity such as refractory status epilepticus (RSE) has led to the use of anaesthetic drugs. Coma is induced with anaesthetic drugs to achieve complete control of seizure activity. Thiopental sodium and propofol are popularly used for this purpose. Both agents have been found to be effective. However, there is a substantial lack of evidence as to which of the two drugs is better in terms of clinical outcome. To compare the efficacy, adverse effects, and short- and long-term outcomes of RSE treated with one of the two anaesthetic agents, thiopental sodium or propofol. We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (26 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library Issue 2, February 2015) and MEDLINE (1946 to 26 March 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (26 March 2015), the South Asian Database of Controlled Clinical Trials and IndMED (a bibliographic database of Indian Medical Journals). All randomised or quasi-randomised controlled studies (regardless of blinding) of control of RSE using either thiopental sodium or propofol in patients of any age and gender. Two review authors screened the search results and reviewed the abstracts of relevant and eligible trials before retrieving the full-text publications. One study with a total of 24 participants was available for review. This study was a small, single-blind, multicentre trial studying adults with RSE receiving either propofol or thiopental sodium for the control of seizure activity. This study cannot be considered of high methodological quality. This study was terminated early due to recruitment problems. This study showed a wide confidence interval suggesting that the drugs may differ in efficacy up to more than two-fold. Days of mechanical ventilation were more in patients receiving thiopental sodium when compared with propofol. At three months there was no evidence of a difference between the drugs with respect to outcome measures such as control of seizure activity and functional outcome. Adverse events reported in this study were infection, hypotension and intestinal ischaemia. Since the last version of this review we have found no new studies.There is a lack of robust, randomised, controlled evidence that can clarify the efficacy of propofol and thiopental sodium compared to each other in the treatment of RSE. There is a need for large randomised controlled trials for this serious condition.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 9 30%
Other 6 20%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Postgraduate 3 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 7%
Other 4 13%
Unknown 1 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 60%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 10%
Psychology 2 7%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 3%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 December 2017.
All research outputs
of 23,652,325 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 12,746 outputs
Outputs of similar age
of 264,989 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
of 290 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,652,325 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,746 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 33.3. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,989 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 290 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.